Ethical Analysis of Euthanasia - Essay Example

Ethical Analysis of Euthanasia of of Introduction This paper undertakes a critique into the concept of euthanasia or mercy killing. Generally, this involves a situation where an individual with a painful medical condition with no possible solution is given some form of inducement in order to die. The motive is to get the person to avoid the pain and difficulties since there is no hope. In order to do this study, the research will undertake critical analysis of the theory of euthanasia and identify the ethical dilemmas involved in it. After that, the researcher will examine the relationship between euthanasia and medical ethics. This will be done through the application of a medical theory to the problem of euthanasia decisions. Analysis of Euthanasia Annandale identifies that the social environment has a strong linkage with nursing (1998). This is because social perceptions and community morals form the foundations of ethics which play a major part in defining what is right and what is wrong (Tew, 2002). Euthanasia is not a traditional health problem. However, it is a major social issue which has connections with the definition of what is right and what is wrong in the society. As a social phenomenon, euthanasia intervenes in the work of nurses in two ways. First of all, the legal position of euthanasia will influence specific rules in medical ethics which will in turn define how a nurse must behave in a given situation. Secondly, the personal mindset of a person in relation to decisions on how to deal with a patient on the verge of euthanasia is influenced by dominant social views on the subject. What is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a method of inducing the death of a patient for two reasons: first of all, the patient must be in a very tough state of a medical condition which might cause undue and disproportionate suffering; secondly, the case must be declared hopeless by medical authorities” (Yount, 2002). Euthanasia is therefore a way of killing a patient in a state which has been declared fatal and is causing a patient to go through untold hardships and suffering. In such a case, the health professional might be obliged to induce the death of the patient to avoid the suffering and the hardship that the person might be going through. Euthanasia comes with two conflicting viewpoints when examined from a medical point of view (Torr, 2000). First of all euthanasia might be seen to be an extreme attempt on the life of a patient that a medical practitioner has been paid to take care of. In that case, the medical professional might be seen to be wicked and playing a negative role on the patient rather than the fundamental role s/he is required to play. On the other hand, euthanasia could be seen to be a humane solution to a problem that has no solution. In other words, there is no point getting a person diagnosed of a very painful disease with no cure to go through all the pain and hardship. It might be better for a person living an agonizing life to die rather than face the torture and pain of having to live every single day suffering (Bloyd, 1995). Ethics in Health Beauchamp and Childress (2000) identify four core elements of medical ethics. Each of the four has a bearing on the debates relating to euthanasia and the need to end life when there is untold suffering and no promise of a cure. They include: Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence & Justice. 1 Autonomy Patients have the right to accept or refuse a given treatment. In other words, the patient is entitled to determine whether s/he wants a given course of treatment or not. If this is not respected, there could be action brought by an aggrieved person on the basis of trespass under law. In light with euthanasia, one may ask whether a person might be able to choose whether to request for a pseudo-suicide treatment or not. Stated differently, can a patient decide to request for a medical professional to end his life or not. In most jurisdiction, this is not allowed. This is because the state is seen to have a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. Hence, it is wrong and absolutely unacceptable for a person to take the life of another even if it is requested by the victim himself. On the other hand, there might be some kind of justification, especially if the patient is suffering and everyone who examines him or her realizes the need to undertake a physician-assisted suicide in that case. So the right to autonomy is quite questionable. Pohling (1996) identifies that on March 6, 1996, a US Circuit Court voted 8 against 3 to overturn the law banning the right of patients to choose whether to live or die in a terrible situation. In this case, a patient going through very difficult conditions was allowed to end his life because of the facts presented. In the Netherlands, individuals autonomy in deciding whether to live or die in the case of an incurable medical condition which is causing hardship was allowed since 1973 (Pohling, 1996). 2 Beneficence A health professional needs to seek what is best for a client. In other words, based on professional judgement, a health professional must come up with a solution that produces the best possible results for a client. This must be justified and steeped in a scientific method that is conclusively preferable. Based on the beneficence principle, a health professional faced with euthanasia is likely to have to separate solutions to the problem. One possible view might be that in the case at hand, the best interest of the client might be death. An example is the case of a person wounded fatally in a motor accident. It might be apparent that such an individual might not survive. Thus, the best way might be to find a humane way of getting the person to die. On the other hand, since the fundamental essence of healthcare is to take care of people, the default position might be to try all possible methods of helping the person to go through the terrible situation. From one hand, that might be good because it might be helping to save a life. On the other hand, the individual might be put in the situation of a try-an-error object. This might work or it might not work. In that sense, the idea would be to do some probability analysis and take the best decision which could be to find a humane way of killing the individual. 3 Non-Maleficence This medical ethic requires that first, a health practitioner should do no harm. In other words, a health practitioner has a higher obligation not to do harm to a patient than to do good to that patient. Thus, if a treatment would cause harm to the patient and make his condition worse than the current condition, then it is better for the health professional to refrain from carrying out the treatment. In this case, the concept of euthanasia is highly problematic. This is because it involves causing the ultimate harm that medical science seeks to prevent – death. Therefore, it is completely wrong for a health professional to kill a person on the grounds of mercy. However, when you look at the other side of mercy killing, one can conclude that it involves a more humane method of death to a person who would die either way. This is because the concept advocates for the fact that persons who are in hopeless conditions who are suffering need to be made to die in a less grotesque manner. 4 Justice Health professionals need to take their decisions on the basis of fairness and equality. This means that there should always be an effort to measure up decisions and choose the best option and find out how to deal with them. In this case, the concept of fairness and equity might be in support of mercy killing. This is because a person who is suffering and is certain to die who chooses a less difficult death route might be considered right under this principle. This is because that individual has elected to die through a more humane way and as such, a medical professional might need to do what the individual asks. This might be tough but it is still a loophole that justice and fairness could create. Dominant Debates in Euthanasia There are several approaches to examining euthanasia and its benefits and drawbacks to the society and/or individual in question. Several commentators have come up with different systems and methods of assessing its position in the society. Arguments for Euthanasia Euthanasias core positive contribution in the society revolves around the fact that it enables health professionals to help people who are in very painful conditions to get a more merciful death than the torture their conditions would cause for them. Scholars like Emanuel (1999) argue that euthanasia is the expression of the democratic rights of individuals to determine how the would die, especially if they are in a medical condition that induces suffering on them. As such, people should be allowed to pass on according to their preferred methods. Magnusson (2003) argues that although euthanasia is banned in different parts of the world, a lot of doctors practice it secretly. This is because in some situations, that is the only win-win situation available. Hence, the just go ahead and kill the patient and keep the facts to themselves by distorting evidence. Another element of euthanasia is that it removes anxiety and sometimes, unnecessary waste of resources when the end is apparently known (Emanuel, 1999). This is because where it is clear that a person would die from a given sickness, his dear ones and family would look forward to what would happen to him or her. This means that they would all be distressed. This would add up to whatever suffering and psychological agony that the patient and his dear ones might be going through. In this case, euthanasia is a solution that brings some kind of certainty to all those involved. Arguments Against Euthanasia In spite of its benefits, euthanasia comes with some well known disadvantages. First of all, no medical professional can predict the future perfectly. There have been instances where some people were pronounced hopeless. Yet, they survived their plight and lived a healthy and longer life than it was predicted. In such a case, euthanasia would have been tantamount to murder. Euthanasia also undermines the integrity of the medical profession (Emanuel 1999). This is because those involved in the healthcare sector are required to protect life and not destroy life. This implies that euthanasia will cause a dent in the profession and cast a slur on health facilities. Also, there is the risk that there would be the abuse of the right to euthanasia. This is because when medics get the chance to support others to end their lives, there could be possibilities for other types of killing under this rule and principle. Pohling brings down empirical evidence from Holland which legalized the practice in 1973. On the basis of studies, 27% of doctors had abused the euthanasia and caused people to die without proper care (Pohling, 1996). On the other hand, if euthanasia is legalized, it would cause a lot of anxiety amongst people. This is because a lot of people would be scared of being killed by health professionals if they get some life threatening conditions. Due to this, they might have psychological problems which could lead to a high degree of hardships which would add up to the already tough situation they might be in. Pohling goes on to say that human beings must be loved in all situations and conditions. He states that every society honours its elderly. And if euthanasia is to be legalized, the vast majority of people that would be affected by it are likely to be older adults. This would cast a dent on the morality of any society that permits euthanasia. Arguments for Regulated Use A more progressive school of thought argue for the legalization of euthanasia but with standards and supervision to monitor its use. Goel suggests that in some cases, euthanasia might be inevitable. And in such situations, there might be the need for permits to be issued. These permits must be authorized by the family of the victims and the doctors. Another argument put forward by Magnusson is that most doctors practice euthanasia secretly so it might be better to legalize it and also regulate it (2003). So there is the need for regulation and rules to govern this branch of healthcare. Ethical Analysis of Euthanasia So what should a nurse or healthcare professional do, when faced with an ethical dilemma involving a person suffering from a serious illness which has no cure? Will such a person be allowed to live to suffer and eventually die? Or should a more humane means be induced so that the person gets a peaceful death? In such a situation, it would be best for the healthcare professional in charge to carry out some important decision making systems. Beachamp and Childress (2000) identify seven main steps in analyzing ethical dilemmas which could be applicable to this situations. Step 1: Diagnosis This involves the collection of important information relating to the patients condition. This requires an accurate examination of the patient to ascertain important facts about the condition and its implications. There should be accurate information on how long the person would live and how the condition would affect the individual. Step 2: Assessment Afterwards, there should be an examination of different approaches that can be used to deal with it. This will involve information about how life would be for the individual if nothing is done and other solutions like euthanasia. This should be outlined clearly and as accurately as possible. Step 3: Consultation The healthcare professional must consult relevant experts on the subject. This could involve lawyers and other specialists who can give important information on how to proceed with the options. Step 4: Plan Different options must be identified. This should culminate in a plan that would involve different scenarios. Step 5: Involve Stakeholders Various stakeholders must be duly informed of the situation and its outcomes. This involves heads of hospitals, family members of victim and others. Step 6: Take Decision With all facts identified, a healthcare professional must take a decision on whether euthanasia should be chosen or not. Step 7: Implement Decision Once the decision is taking, it must be carried out as planned. References Annandale E, (1998) The Sociology of Health and Medicine: A critical introduction, Polity, Cambridge Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press Berry, T. (2010) Euthanasia: Indianapolis, IN: iUniverse Bloyd, S. (1995) Euthanasia London: Lancert Press Emanuel E. J. (1999) “What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide” Ethics Vol. 109 No. 3 pp629 – 642 Goel, V. (2008) “Euthanasia – A Dignified End of Life” International NGO Journal Vol 3 (12) pp224 – 231 Magnusson, R. S. (2003) “Euthanasia: Above Ground, Below Ground”J Med Ethics 30 pp441 – 446 [Online] Available at: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/5/441.full Retrieved: September 16, 2012 . Pohling R. G., (1996) “Euthanasia: The Battle for Life” [Online] Life and Ethics Journal, Vol 3 (2) pp314 - 321 Tew J (2002). Social Theory, Power and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan. Torr, J. (2000) Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints New York: Greenhaven Press. Yount, L. (2002) Euthanasia New York: Greenhaven Press Read More